The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Wadhera v. Deputy Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors. [W.P.(C) 5465/2025 order dated May 21, 2025] held that where serious allegations of fraudulent availment of IGST refunds are levelled against the Petitioner, and opportunity of hearing was available but not availed, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked and the Petitioner must approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Facts:
Ramesh Kumar Wadhera (“the Petitioner”), filed the present writ, challenging the Order-in-Original dated February 4, 2025, passed by the Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax (Delhi West), pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated August 2, 2024, issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“the Respondents”).
The Petitioner contended that the impugned order had been passed without granting him an opportunity of personal hearing and without service of hearing notices. The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner had received multiple notices but failed to appear, and that the allegations in the Show Cause Notice were grave and detailed the Petitioner’s role as the principal mastermind in a large-scale IGST refund scam.
The investigation revealed that the Petitioner along with a few others had orchestrated a scheme involving creation of dummy firms in the names of unsuspecting individuals, through which IGST refunds were fraudulently claimed. It was also found that the Petitioner was a habitual offender with prior proceedings initiated by DRI and Customs.
The Petitioner had earlier approached the Court in W.P.(C) 1115/2025, where they failed to raise the issue of non-service or seek a hearing at that time. That petition was disposed of by order dated January 29, 2025, wherein the Court declined to interfere with the Show Cause Notice.
Issue:
Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge the adjudication proceedings where grave allegations of fraud have been made?
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5465/2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the Petitioner had earlier approached the Court in P.(C) 1115/2025, and the Court, by order dated January 29, 2025, declined to quash the Show Cause Notice. At that time, the Petitioner had the opportunity to seek a hearing or raise the issue of non-service of notice, which he did not do.
- Held that, the Petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and failed to appear. Thus, the contention of denial of personal hearing was unsubstantiated.
- Noted that, the allegations against the Petitioner were extremely serious, including his role in creating and operating fictitious firms, wrongful availment of IGST refunds, and past involvement in similar frauds. Several co-noticees were also found to be part of the fraudulent transactions.
- Held that, entertaining a writ petition in such circumstances would amount to giving a premium to fraudulent conduct under the GST framework, and would not be appropriate under Article 226 jurisdiction.
- Further directed that, the Petitioner may avail statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Since the Order-in-Original was dated February 4, 2025, time was granted until July 10, 2025, to file an appeal along with the requisite pre-deposit.
Our Comments:
The present judgment reinforces the bar against invoking writ jurisdiction in cases involving serious allegations of fraud under GST law. Despite claiming procedural lapses, the Petitioner had been aware of the proceedings and yet failed to exercise his right to hearing. This failure, when combined with grave allegations of GST refund fraud, led the Court to rightly decline relief under Article 226. The Petitioner’s argument of not being giving an opportunity to be heard does not stand.
The Court drew support from its earlier decision in Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. [2025:DHC:3532-DB], wherein it was held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of those who conceal material facts or misrepresent the record. The Court did not entertain the petition as the Petitioner has not come with clean hands to the court.
This position also aligns with the Supreme Court’s view in K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, [(2008) 12 SCC 481], where it was held: “It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything… If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts… his petition may be dismissed at the threshold…”
Similarly, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38, the Supreme Court affirmed: “The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance… applies to petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136… Every court is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants…”
The Delhi High Court had relied on these precedents to conclude that writ relief would not be appropriate for a litigant involved in serious GST fraud. The Petitioner has been directed to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107, with sufficient time granted for filing.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
